I noticed how you were VERY strongly opposed to the fact that these boat might be swift, or even to the fact that the solid foredeck might add buoyancy to the boat (by having foam inside it). But such a comment on a quote out of context, as I said the Bali 4.5 didn't lack performance in its category (aka condomarans), has nothing constructive in it thus I wonder seriously if you are there trolling, in which case you might want to get out.

By helping it float while the hulls are submerged and you wait for rescue of course

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. I'm no marineengineer, but I have a hard time understanding how that would help normal buoyancy. Even if the piece itself is buoyant, it's still weight above the waterline that has to be displaced by volume under the water.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. I'm no marineengineer, but I have a hard time understanding how that would help normal buoyancy. Even if the piece itself is buoyant, it's still weight above the waterline that has to be displaced by volume under the water.

(And to avoid thread creep, I think the Bali's are butt-ugly)

Yep exactly - extra weight not buoyancy and more importantly in a very wrong place for stability and wave impact damage.

I just delivered a new Bali 4.5 from Bermuda to Antigua, including 24 hours in full gale.
Capt and I made many repairs on voyage. Averaged 167 miles/ day with lots of wind. Lots of wind, so a tough voyage but fast.

It may work financially as a charter business as long as you depreciate fully over 5 years. The boat I delivered was 4 cabin 4 head, gen set, water maker, AC in every cabin, and was chartered immediately upon our arrival.

Good and bad features, though I would never buy one. The amount of construction trash clogging the bilge pumps, and the poor design of basic systems convinced me to Never Consider a Catana, let alone a Bali. They don't care.

PM me for details. As I said, good and bad features. this boat is surely perfect for some uses and some sailors.

To be brief, the bridge deck buoyancy thing is mentioned because some people thought it would make it easy for the cat to pitch pole (I guess some people have pretty strong opinions over things they don't know, just like here) and the solid bridge deck is said to have some aerodynamic lift, which would help with its weight. Plus it obviously makes the boat mode solid. For the finish, it seems like it is pretty rubbish, as someone with actual FACTS and EVIDENCE told there.

As I said above, I just delivered a new Bali 4.5 over 1,000 NM.
I stood watch 40% of the time.
We had confused 6-10' seas south of Bermuda for more than 24 hours, with waves from 2 and 3 directions, so it was impossible not to be hit.
The solid foredeck carried tons of water at times, making us prone to fall off waves. The water swirled in the seating wells and also sloshed over the fwd hatches, leaking into the bow sections and eventually into the fwd cabins.

To be brief, the bridge deck buoyancy thing is mentioned because some people thought it would make it easy for the cat to pitch pole (I guess some people have pretty strong opinions over things they don't know, just like here) and the solid bridge deck is said to have some aerodynamic lift, which would help with its weight. Plus it obviously makes the boat mode solid. For the finish, it seems like it is pretty rubbish, as someone with actual FACTS and EVIDENCE told there.

Come on, man. You're just making stuff up. There is no aerodynamic lift from that thing at 7 knots. And as for pitchpoling, there ain't nothing better for it than a flat plane digging into the water in front of the boat. There is a reason nobody since Prout a thousand years ago builds cats this way. Finally, if it needs a solid bridgedeck forward for structural purposes, then the designer has done something very, very wrong. Its a badly built boat on a bad design. Stop trying to slap lipstick on it.

Come on, man. You're just making stuff up. There is no aerodynamic lift from that thing at 7 knots. And as for pitchpoling, there ain't nothing better for it than a flat plane digging into the water in front of the boat. There is a reason nobody since Prout a thousand years ago builds cats this way. Finally, if it needs a solid bridgedeck forward for structural purposes, then the designer has done something very, very wrong. Its a badly built boat on a bad design. Stop trying to slap lipstick on it.

Please read properly before answering with such arrogance:
- about the lift, not my opinion (which seemed pretty clear), I just wrote what was said about it. Also, I wonder what if not aerodynamic lift pushes this boat while sailing, as well as some 13 tons tris over 40 kts ;-)
- for the pitchpoling, as I wrote, this is no flat plane digger. As it has some thickness and foam in it, (and as the bottom of the boat will be below surface sooner than the top logically) i is supposed to lift the nose out of water which seems coherent, again not my ideas.
- concerning structural integrity, you're again deforming what I wrote and you'd be the first to complain about a more solid design. I won't even comment on your undocumented assumptions about the architect..
Finally as you wrote the Prout try for these designs was long ago but times have changed grandpa and this leaves a sad feeling that you've passed the ages of being excited by innovation only referring to what was done before to judge wether things are good or not without many logical arguments to back up your points.
I'm somehow beginning to understand Catana owners for leaving this forum

Please read properly before answering with such arrogance:
- about the lift, not my opinion (which seemed pretty clear), I just wrote what was said about it. Also, I wonder what if not aerodynamic lift pushes this boat while sailing, as well as some 13 tons tris over 40 kts ;-)
- for the pitchpoling, as I wrote, this is no flat plane digger. As it has some thickness and foam in it, (and as the bottom of the boat will be below surface sooner than the top logically) i is supposed to lift the nose out of water which seems coherent, again not my ideas.
- concerning structural integrity, you're again deforming what I wrote and you'd be the first to complain about a more solid design. I won't even comment on your undocumented assumptions about the architect..
Finally as you wrote the Prout try for these designs was long ago but times have changed grandpa and this leaves a sad feeling that you've passed the ages of being excited by innovation only referring to what was done before to judge wether things are good or not without many logical arguments to back up your points.
I'm somehow beginning to understand Catana owners for leaving this forum

TD.

Its not arrogance. Its just setting the record straight. And there are plenty of Catana owners on this forum, maybe just not the ones with their heads in the clouds. But in any event I don't think they'll want to be lumped in with Bali owners. The reaction you are receiving is what happens when someone comes barging in spouting all kinds of nonsense and won't listen to reason.

This is the thing you say is creating lift, and is therefore a good thing? And you compare it to the sails which make a boat go? That is just nuts. But if "someone" told you, then it must be true. And we are to believe its a good thing because it strengthens the boat while a careful designer would accomplish the same thing with a bit of carbon here and there for a tiny fraction of the weight? Also, nuts. And as for pitch poling, it might have a bit more buoyancy but think about the resistance of that mess when it is going underwater - its asses over elbows for sure. Finally, I don't think you understood the Prout reference but I don't really know what you were trying to say. These are all just attempts to rationalize on seaworthiness grounds what is really a design choice dictated purely by comfort, and it doesn't fly. If you like the boat, get it. Just don't try to convince people it is what it ain't.

Aerodynamic lift over an airfoil shaped sail that is a few hundred square feet and oriented to face the optimal direction for the wind which is likely to be in the double digits is understandable.

Lift caused by a flat foredeck moving downwind/off the wind at 8kts is not.

Not to mention the orientation of force from the sail moves the boat forward. The orientation of a flat foredeck would mean any lift generated would be straight up. That would be working directly against the total weight of the boat. I'm a little rusty on my trig but the amount of force needed to overcome the static drag of a given weight in water is significantly less than the force needed to lift the same weight.

As for protection against pitchpoling, it's a risk/reward tradeoff. The only way I can see this as an advantage is if they needed extra weight forward to offset weight in the stern in order to balance the boat. The danger of burying a flat foredeck in a wave would be way too serious to overcome the benefit of the flat foredeck from a stability standpoint. From what I understand, pitchpoling most often occurs when you bury the bows and they dig in, I would think a flat foredeck would significantly increase the risk of that happening, and the floatation of a few square feet of foam or balsa cored deck wouldn't be enough to overcome the drag of a few square feet of flat deck underwater.

I appreciate you passing on the information as you've heard it, but I think we can agree that information is marketing BS or owner justifications at best.

Its not arrogance. Its just setting the record straight. And there are plenty of Catana owners on this forum, maybe just not the ones with their heads in the clouds. But in any event I don't think they'll want to be lumped in with Bali owners. The reaction you are receiving is what happens when someone comes barging in spouting all kinds of nonsense and won't listen to reason.

This is the thing you say is creating lift, and is therefore a good thing? And you compare it to the sails which make a boat go? That is just nuts. But if "someone" told you, then it must be true. And we are to believe its a good thing because it strengthens the boat while a careful designer would accomplish the same thing with a bit of carbon here and there for a tiny fraction of the weight? Also, nuts. And as for pitch poling, it might have a bit more buoyancy but think about the resistance of that mess when it is going underwater - its asses over elbows for sure. Finally, I don't think you understood the Prout reference but I don't really know what you were trying to say. These are all just attempts to rationalize on seaworthiness grounds what is really a design choice dictated purely by comfort, and it doesn't fly. If you like the boat, get it. Just don't try to convince people it is what it ain't.

To begin with, I was only mentionning Catana owners as they migrated to their own yahoo forum, and won't dare posting about their boats here only because of the bashing they were getting from inexpirienced close minded members, which I realised is totally believable (I am here quoting one of them from a thread on this forum)
Secondly, you indeed don't know nothing about what I am saying so try to understand, and open your mind:
I am not here trying to say the boats are great or better than others, just exposing an alternate point of view, more optimistic than the kind of criticism you and others have wrote. To do so, i use arguments made, of course, by the builders of these boats but also journalists who have reviewed it with an objective point of view. So the "someone told me" may be more trustworthy than what you claim with so much zeal out of nothing but your own personal experience and opinion. Thus understand that I won't take for granted what you present as "reason" just like you call "nonsense" or "nuts" what I believe can possibly be true about this boat's characteristics as no one has proved it wasn't (see? not claiming it's true NOR wrong, just showing people who do they might make a mistake).
Finally if you still don't get my point, you're a lost case of the internet and you can go on and claim everything is a truck and a condo, and can't sail anywhere faster than half the speed of wind if it's comfortable, unless it's a 100% carbon gunboat.

Aerodynamic lift over an airfoil shaped sail that is a few hundred square feet and oriented to face the optimal direction for the wind which is likely to be in the double digits is understandable.

Lift caused by a flat foredeck moving downwind/off the wind at 8kts is not.

Not to mention the orientation of force from the sail moves the boat forward. The orientation of a flat foredeck would mean any lift generated would be straight up. That would be working directly against the total weight of the boat. I'm a little rusty on my trig but the amount of force needed to overcome the static drag of a given weight in water is significantly less than the force needed to lift the same weight.

I get what you mean, seems pretty crazy to think the lift could have a meaningful impact but saying there is no lift at all is just wrong. Of course, it's objective would be to fight agaist the weight (even though with the venturi effect under the boat it might even do the opposite), but i believe the solid foredeck might not have a negative impact on the aerodynamics of the boat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071

As for protection against pitchpoling, it's a risk/reward tradeoff. The only way I can see this as an advantage is if they needed extra weight forward to offset weight in the stern in order to balance the boat. The danger of burying a flat foredeck in a wave would be way too serious to overcome the benefit of the flat foredeck from a stability standpoint. From what I understand, pitchpoling most often occurs when you bury the bows and they dig in, I would think a flat foredeck would significantly increase the risk of that happening, and the floatation of a few square feet of foam or balsa cored deck wouldn't be enough to overcome the drag of a few square feet of flat deck underwater.

I appreciate you passing on the information as you've heard it, but I think we can agree that information is marketing BS or owner justifications at best.

In fact, pitchpoling often occurs when bows dig in but it usually hapens on small cats where the forces which push the boat downwind are so high above water that the boat just wants to flip. Again on a 45 feet cat the hulls have a lot more inertia so even with the high drag underwater i don't see it pitchpoling (even with the paropriate waves, which would have to be very short and high to put the bows underwater). As for the bridgedeck, i imagine the force required to sink such a large portion of deck (which would act as a very large hull) before it actually goes fully underwater makes it pretty silly to think it will dig in like a shovel. Because of course you have to consider the boat can't be at an angle of more than 45° before digging in so in a such configuration a large area f the deck would have to be submerged to pitchpole, as the front of the deck can't reach water before that large area.
Again that's what I thought from what I've read, to try and have a somewhat different point of view from totally condemning the idea, and I apreciate your clever and polite post.